- (1.) THESE are two connected applications under Art. 226 of the Constitution in connection with the election of Surpanch and Panch of the Tehsil Panchayat, Jayal. Application No. 189 is by Hussain Mohd. , who wanted to stand for the office of Surpanch. Application No. 201 is by lshaq who wanted to stand as Panch.
(2.) THE facts which have led to these applications may be briefly stated. 17th November, 1956, was fixed for the election of the Tehsil Panchayat and nominations were called for upto 9th November, 1956. On the 8th of November, 1956, a nomination paper was filed on behalf of Hussain Mohd. for the office of Surpanch. On the same day another nomination paper was filed on behalf of lshaq for the office of Panch. THEse two nomination papers were presented by one Nasruddin before the Tehsildar. As the necessary fee had already been paid, they were entered in the register kept for the purpose. On the 10th of November, 1956, the Tehsildar scrutinized the nomination papers and rejected them. His order in both cases is in exactly the same terms and we may set it down here : "he did not present the form himself, hence rejected. Nor present today, hence his qualifications cannot De verified. " THE present applications are against this order of the Tehsildar. Learned counsel for the applicants relies on two decisions of this Court in Anandilal vs. Panchayat Officer (1) and Kishangopal vs. THE Rajasthan State (2 ). In Anandilal's case this court held that a nomInation paper cannot be rejected on the ground that the candidate was absent at the time of the scrutIny. It is also poInted out In that case that the returnIng officer has power to reject the nomInation paper only if the candidate is found disqualified under sec. 10 or suffers from any of the Infirmities mentioned In sec. 11 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act. In Kishangopal's case it was held that it was not necessary that the candidate should file his nomInation paper personally. RelyIng on these two cases learned counsel for the applicants urges that the Tehsildar was wrong In rejectIng the nomInation papers and thus deprivIng the applicants of their right to stand for election of the Tehsil Panchayat. We think it necessary to examine these two cases at some length as in our view learned counsel wants us to read more into them than what was intended. Before we do so, we should like to point out that the person who presented the nomination papers in this case was one Nasruddin. In the case of Hussain Mohd. the proposer was one Arjunram and the seconder, one Amruddin. In the case of Ishaq, the proposer was one Kishnaram and the seconder, one Kistooram. The nomination papers in these two cases were not presented by the proposers or seconders or the candidates. They were presented by a fourth person, namely, Nasruddin, whose authority to present them is not clear on the nomination papers. We should have thought in these circumstances that the Tehsildar would have refused to accept them. Anyhow, he accepted them and it is now stated before us that Nasruddin was the agent of Hussain Mohd. and Ishaq for the purposes of the election. It is in these circumstances that we have to examine the two cases mentioned above. So far as Anandilal's case is concerned, it is enough to say that we accept the propositions of law laid down in that case, namely, (1) that a nomination paper cannot be rejected on the ground that the candidate was absent at the time of the scrutiny, and (2) that the returning officer can only reject a nomination paper if the candidate is not qualified under sec. 10 or suffers from anyof the infirmities mentioned in sec. 1l. In that case, however, the nomination paper which had been rejected was not filed by a fourth person who was neither a proposer, nor a seconder, not the candidate himself. That case, therefore, cannot be an authority for laying down that any person other than these three can present a nomination paper and such presentation would entitle the person nominated to stand for the election. The relevant rules in this connection are Nos. 23, 24 and 26. A reading of Rules 23 and 24 makes it clear that they do not lay down specifically that the nomination paper must be presented by the candidate personally. It is because of this that this Court decided in Kishangopal's case that it was not necessary for the candidate to present the nomination paper himself. But there was no decision in Kishangopal's case that any person could present the nomination paper on behalf of the candidate. That question did not arise in Kishangopal's case and was not considered. Similarly, in Anandilal's case this Court said that the nomination paper cannot be rejected on the ground that the candidate was absent at the time of the scrutiny. The reason for this was that Rule 26 which provides for scrutiny does not require that a candidate should be present at the time of the scrutiny. Further, Rule 26, at it is worded, merely says that the scrutiny will take place on the next day after the nomination. It fixes no place and time for the candidate to be present for the purpose of scrutiny. In those circumstances, unless the candidate is required to be present by the rules and knows where and at what time he is to be present, it cannot be accepted that he must be present at the time of the scrutiny and if he is absent his nomination paper would be rejected. It was urged by the learned Deputy Government Advocate that the returning officer has to satisfy himself that the candidate is duly qualified for standing for the election and this he can only do if the candidate appears before him at some time. We are of opinion that in the absence of any specific provision either in Rules 23 or 24 or in 26 for the presence of the candidate, we cannot hold that the candidate must deliver the nomination paper himself or must be present at the time of the scrutiny. As for the returning officer's duty of satisfying himself that the candidate is duly qualified, all that we can say is that the law and the rules thereunder leave it to the returning officer to satisfy himself on the point as best as he can as for example by looking at the nomi-nation paper. How he satisfies himself is a matter left to his discretion and if he has satisfied himself somehow or other as to the qualification or otherwise of a candidate, he has power to reject the nomination if the candidate has not the qualifications mentioned in sec. 10 or is suffering from any of the infirmities under sec. 11. But the cannot insist upon the candidate being present in order that he may satisfy himself on these two points. The law as it stands leaves it to him to satisfy himself as he best as he can without insisting upon the presence of the candidate. It was this that was held by this Court in Anandilal's case and we are of opinion that that is correct. It is, however, contended on behalf of the applicants that it was held in Anandilal's case that the returning officer could only reject the nomination paper if the candidate was not qualified under sec. 10 or was suffering from any of the infirmities mentioned in sec. 11 and that the nomination paper could not be rejected for any other reason. Learned counsel wants to interpret these words literally, namely, if the nomination paper has been rejected for any other reason, this Court must intervene and allow the candidate to stand It is enough to point out that there was no question in Anandilal's case of the nomination paper being not presented by the candidate or by his proposer or seconder. It was in those circumstances that the Court said that the nomination paper could only be rejected if the candidate was not qualified under sec. 10 or suffered from any of the infirmities mentioned in sec. 11. The present two cases, however, raise a different question altogether which was not canvassed in Anandilal's case. The question raised in the present two cases is whether a nomination paper can be presented by a person other than the candidate, or his proposer or seconder. The names of the proposer, seconder and the candidate appear on the nomination paper and Rules 23 and 24 stand we may accept that any of these three can file a nomination paper. But we do not think that it was the intention of the legislature that anybody other than these three can file a nomination paper. The reason for this is very simple. A nomination paper is a matter of importance in an election and it is necessary that it should be filed by some person having the necessary authority to do so. We can understand the candidate filing the nomination paper himself or his proposer or seconder doing so ; But we cannot understand any other person filing the nomination paper. Therefore, reading Rules 23 and 24 and applying principles of common sense in the absence of a specific provision thereunder, we can only hold that a nomination paper can be presented by the candidate or his proposer or seconder, because these are the only three names appearing on the nomination paper, as the persons who are connected with it or who have any authority with respect to it It may perhaps be also presented by an election agent provided the Panchayat Act or Rules thereunder contain any provision relating to an election agent. But we find that there is no provision for any election agent either in the Panchayat Act or the Rules thereunder. Therefore it cannot be open to any candidate to have an election agent for purposes of Panchayat election. Election agents are provided in various elections by specific provision either in the law or in the rules. They cannot be allowed to function where there is no specific provision with respect to them in the law or the rules relating to a particular election. Therefore, as the Panchayat Act or Rules thereunder do not provide for election agents, there can be no question of a nomination paper being presented by an election agent even if we were to interpret Rules 25 and 24 so liberally as to include an election agent within their compass. Consequently, even if Nasruddin was an election agent as is now being said, he had no authority to present under the law the nomination paper of Hussain Mohd. or Ishaq, for the Panchayat election law and rules recognise no election agent. Lastly, it was urged that in any case the Tehsildar's order is wrong because he has rejected the nomination papers on the ground that the applicants did not present them and that they were not present on the day the scrutiny was to be made. The reasons given by the Tehsildar in rejecting the nomination papers are certainly wrong. But the fact remains that in this case the so called nomination papers were presented by a person who had no authority to present them. In these circumstances, the consequence is that there were in reality no proper nomination papers at ail before the Tehsildar on behalf of these two persons. Therefore, whatever may be the words used by the Tehsildar, his order was right, namely, that these two persons could not stand for election and their nomination papers were of no avail. In these circumstances, we see no reason to interfere with the order of the Tehsildar. The applications are hereby rejected, but in view of the circumstances we pass no order as to costs. . ;